2008 04-efa-cafs-challenges4 canada-mundy (1)

592 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Spiritual
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
592
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2008 04-efa-cafs-challenges4 canada-mundy (1)

  1. 1. DISCUSSION NOTE: EDUCATION FOR ALL IN CONFLICT-AFFECTED STATES: CHALLENGES FOR CANADA1Recognition is growing within the international community that conflicts of all kinds blockdevelopment and limit the realization of basic human rights. Among the rights that are seriouslyabrogated in times of conflict and crisis is the internationally recognized right to education. Of the 72million children currently out of school, close to 40 million live in conflict-affected states,i while only3% of the estimated 7 million child-refugees aged 12-17 have access to education (Save the Children2007 & 2008; RET 2008; Table 1 below).The right to education is particularly critical for children in situations of conflict and crisis: it canprovide safety, security and normalcy; opportunities for psychosocial healing and the building ofresiliency; access to services such as health and nutrition; and potentially life-saving protectionmessages. Education is particularly important for girls, who are especially vulnerable during conflict.There is now a well-coordinated community of practitioners and policy-makers working with newtools and approaches to improve access and quality of education in conflict-affected states. Yet seriousgaps remain in international efforts to ensure that children in conflict-affected states have access togood quality education, particularly in terms of donor financing and coordination.In this discussion paper, we examine three sets of key issues and challenges facing the Canadiangovernment and Canadian civil society actors as we work together to ensure that children in conflict-affected countries have sustained access to good quality basic education.Issue #1: Increased Finance for Education in Conflict-affected StatesInternational estimates set a figure of $9 billion as the amount required annually from the internationalcommunity to ensure good quality basic education for all ($11 billion if early childhood education andadult literacy is included) (UNESCO 2007: 102).ii At least half of this amount is needed to address theeducational needs of children in conflict-affected states.Since 2000, Canada has made enormous improvements in its support for basic education in thedeveloping world, more than doubling overall ODA for this purpose since 2000. Basic education is aclear priority of our aid program, receiving over 7 % of total ODA (CIDA 2001; CIDA 2007; Unesco2007). However, despite an encouraging increase in spending in this area, Canada provided only anestimated 61% of our fair share of the $ 9 billion “education for all” (EFA) financing gap between2004 and 2006 (as calculated on the basis of our share of total GNI among OECD countries).iii As thisfigure signals, Canada and other OECD donors will need to dramatically increase their education ODA1 Prepared by Karen Mundy, OISE-UT and CGCE, with research support from Jackie Kirk, Kim Kerr,Mona Ghali and Megan Haggerty, for the CGCE-CIDA Learning Forum on Education in ConflictAffected States, Ottawa, April 28, 2008.
  2. 2. Education for All In Conflict Affected Statesif the Millennium Development goal of universal access to primary education is to be achieved by2015, particularly for children in conflict-affected states. Canada’s official development assistance isstalled at about 0.3 % of our gross national income (or about $ 4.4 billion for 2008/9), far below theUnited Nations’ “Pearson target” of 0.7 %, and significantly below the OECD average country effortof 0.45 % in 2007. The government continues to add new objectives for the aid program (as forexample, a new focus on the Americas), but to date has not announced an official plan for increasingaid beyond 2010 (CCIC 2008).CIDA’s Sustainable Development Strategy (2007-2009), pledges an increase in support to conflict-affected states (CIDA 2007). However, Canadian financing for education in conflict-affected statesbetween 2004-2006 was well below allocations for basic education in most other low-incomecountries. Using its list of 28 conflict-affected countries, Save the Children finds that even though halfof all out-of-school children live in conflict-affected states, Canada allocated only 18 % of Canada’stotal aid to education, and 12 % of its global total aid for basic education, to CAFS between 2004 and2006 (Save 2008). Of the total ODA spent in CAFS in the same period, less than 5 % targetseducation. This distribution is illustrated in Figures 1 & 2 and Table 1 below. Furthermore, while thepast 5 years have seen significant improvement in Canadian funding for education in CAFS, most ofthis has been focused in a small number of countries (see Table 1 below).Figures 1 & 2: Canadian Aid for Education in Conflict-Affected Countries 2004-2006 Distribution of basic education aid Education aid (average 2004-2006) Unallocated CAFS Unallocated CAFS 4% 13% 12% 18% MICs 19% MICs 37% Other LICs 32% Other LICs 65%Source: Save the Children 2008, based on data from the OECD-DAC, for the years 2004-2006.Beyond improvements in aid volume, Canada can also improve its financing for basic education inconflict-affected countries by increasing coordination between its humanitarian and developmentassistance financing channels, and between government-led and NGO initiated efforts. Education isincreasingly recognized as a fourth pillar for humanitarian support, requiring predictable financingfrom periods of acute conflict through to stabilization (Rose & Greeley 2006). But education is notwell institutionalized as a frontline response inside CIDA’s humanitarian assistance facility, with theresult that only about 2.1% of Canada’s humanitarian aid is allocated to education, while more than50% is used for food aid (Save 2008; OECD-DAC 2007). Furthermore, in Canada as in other OECDcountries, education funding is threatened when countries move from acute crisis to stabilization andreconstruction – due both to limited coordination between humanitarian and bilateral aid channels, and4/22/08 2
  3. 3. Education for All In Conflict Affected Statesto hesitancy in committing large amounts of bilateral aid to new and untested governments (Sperling2006; Rose & Greeley 2006). Flexible forms of financing, including financing that gradually linksnongovernmental to government initiatives, can help solve these gaps in aid flows.Key challenges (1):How can we work together to ensure that Canada:a) Develops a timetable for meeting the Pearson target and produces a publicly available plan forincreasing Canada’s contributions to the international financing gap for basic education?b) Sets commitment targets for education ODA in conflict-affected states?c) Develops enhanced mechanisms for coordination between humanitarian and bilateral assistancechannels, and between government and NGO initiatives, to ensure smooth and predictable financingfor education in CAFS?Issue # 2: Resource Allocation for the “Last in Line”Although there is international agreement that more attention needs to be paid to education in conflict-affected states, there is no consensus on how to best allocate aid for education among conflict-affectedstates. The OECD DAC has warned of the high concentration of aid to a small number of conflictaffected states; while other analysts worry that geopolitical or security concerns may override povertyand basic human rights as criteria for ODA, creating “aid orphans” among conflict-affected and otherdeveloping countries (Aning 2007; Rose & Greeley 2006; OECD-DAC April 2007).Canada appears to be at a particularly dynamic juncture in decision-making about the geographicallocation of Canadian aid.iv Recent announcements suggest a growing trend towards allocatingCanadian aid to meet geopolitical and security agendas; as well as a serious move towardsconcentration on a smaller number of countries. Such trends have been reflected in our educationsector aid, as for example in recent announcements of large, high profile projects in Afghanistan andHaiti (see Appendix 1). As can be seen in Table 1, below, close to 80% of all our education aid toconflict-affected states between 2004-2006 was concentrated in three countries: Afghanistan, Pakistanand Haiti. Several other CAFS receive smaller but still significant amounts of Canadian ODA foreducation, while some CAFs countries receive aid but little for education.Two key questions are raised by these allocations. First, what principles should organize aidallocations to conflict-affected countries? For conflict-affected countries, where there are already cleardonor darlings and aid orphans, this is a particularly important question. While the urgency of thedevelopmental, humanitarian and educational crises in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Haiti isreal, many conflict-affected countries with significant numbers of out-of-school children are neglectedin both Canadian and international aid allocations (see Table 1). Civil society organizations haveargued that our aid should have one primary focus: poverty reduction. This is the central focus of BillC-293, currently in the final stage of passage in the Canadian senate. Civil society actors have alsoargued for a larger number of countries of concentration (25). Neither CIDA’s now-dated 2002 policyframework for basic education aid, nor its recent Sustainable Development Strategy, adequatelyaddresses these allocative dilemmas. Both CIDA and CSOs could benefit from more sustained publicdebate about the rationale for concentrating Canada’s aid to education in such a small number ofconflict-affected states.4/22/08 3
  4. 4. Education for All In Conflict Affected StatesTable 1. Canadian Aid to Education in Conflict Affected Countries Canadian Policy Status Canadian Education Aid 2004-2006 CIDA Country of Canada’s Average % of total Share Number of Conflict Affected Country Focus in Rank Annual Canadian of total primary- of CIDA’s Among Ed ODA ODA Ed Countries Focus Programs for OECD (millions, allocated ODA age (2005) Conflict/Crisis Donors constant to Ed for all children (2008/09) (2004- $ 2005) CAFS out of 2006) (%) school thAfghanistan x 5 9.7278 8.98 30.10 2,082,000 thAngola 16 0 0 0.00 800,000 thBurundi 13 0 0 0.00 480,000 thCambodia x 8 1.2629 8.92 3.91 23,000 thCentral African Republic 13 0 0 0.00 287,000 thChad 15 0 0 0.00 594,000 thColombia 10 0.8586 12.22 2.66 479,000 thCongo 7 0 0 0.00 376,000 thCote dIvoire 15 0 0 0.00 1,223,000 thDRC 9 0.0142 1.85 0.04 5,026,000 thEritrea 15 0 0 0.00 308,000 thEthiopia x 5 0.1643 0.24 0.51 2,666,000 thGuinea 7 0 0 0.00 501,000 ndHaiti x 2 7.7177 7.45 23.88 704,000 thIraq 8 0.1533 0.09 0.47 552,000 thLiberia 13 0 0 0.00 171,000 thMyanmar 15 0 0 0.00 487,000 thNepal 9 0 0 0.00 702,000 thNigeria 11 0.0568 0.34 0.18 6,584,000 thPakistan x 6 7.6715 19.08 23.74 6,303,000 thRwanda x 9 0 0 0.00 373,000 thSierra Leone 13 0 0 0.00 277,000 thSomalia 9 0.0394 0.91 0.12 1,231,000 thSri Lanka x 11 4.0425 16.34 12.51 47,000 thSudan x 7 0 0 0.00 2,695,000 thTimor Leste 6 0 0 0.00 3,000 thUganda 12 0.4890 5.48 1.51 1,151,000 thZimbabwe 9 0.1221 2.99 0.38 429,000Total 32.3191 4.92% 100% 36,554,000Notes: This list of conflict-affected states is that used by Save the Children (2006, 2008). Column 2 identifies those countries on theSave list that are also among the 25 countries of focus for Canadian aid identified in 2005. Column 3 identifies those countries on theSave list that are identified as central to CIDA’s fragile state/reconstruction initiatives in CIDA’s 2008/9 Budget Estimates and by CIDAofficials in private communication with the author. Column 4, based on OECD-DAC commitments data, ranks the size of Canada’s totalODA to each country compared to other donors. Column 5 and 6 draw on OECD-DAC commitment data to show average annualcommitments to education (04-06) and the percentage of total Canadian ODA committed to education for each country (respectively).Column 7 shows what percentage of Canada’s total education aid to conflict affected states each country receives. Column 8 is based onestimates in Save (2008); Column 8 uses data provided by the UIS 2005.A second question is what Canada and Canadians can do to ensure that multilateral mechanisms are inplace to monitor and evaluate the distribution and availability of education sector funding for childrenin conflict-affected countries. Such efforts appear to be in their infancy, but several alternatives havebeen proposed. For example, there have been calls for an enhanced monitoring facility and/or a4/22/08 4
  5. 5. Education for All In Conflict Affected Statespooled fund for education in CAFS through the OECD’s Fragile States Initiative or the World Bank-hosted Fast Track Initiative, and for using UNESCO’s Education for All Global Monitoring Reportteam for enhanced monitoring of funding gaps in GAS. (Rose & Greeley 2006; Sperling 2006). Oneway that Canada can balance its concentration of resources in a few countries is through amplifiedsupport for such multilateral initiatives, where possible engaging Canadian CSOs in such efforts.Key challenges (2):What can we do to:a) Ensure that poverty reduction and need remain key criteria for allocating educational aid amongconflict-affected states?b) Make allocative decisions more transparent and open to broader public debate and accountability?c) Stimulate innovative initiatives for monitoring funding gaps and ensuring adequate financing foreducation in “orphaned” CAFS?Issue # 3: Shared Principles for Better AidWhile no official education sector policy yet guides Canada’s aid for education in conflict-affectedareas, Canada has participated in a variety of multilateral efforts to produce a common set of principlesand guidelines, including the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies’ (INEE) MinimumStandards; the Fast Track Initiative’s Progressive Framework for work on education in fragile states;and the OECD-DAC’s Fragile States Initiative (INEE 2004; Buckland & Colensa 2006; Rose &Greeley 2006). While the focus and details of these initiatives vary, each supports some aspect of thefollowing seven principles:1. Offer educational services and safe learning spaces as quickly as possible to conflict-affected populations, through flexible approaches (such as informal delivery mechanisms, NGO-led initiatives, etc.). Develop alternative, transitional financing mechanisms where government capacity and legitimacy are limited. Such services provide an important return to normalcy and hope. They also provide a protective environment for children, including the very young, reducing their vulnerability to violence.2. Focus on the provision of inclusive education – through equality of access, the establishment of safe learning spaces, and active participation of communities and children in the management and operation of schools – while being sensitive to continuing inter-group tensions. Direct attention towards specific pockets of exclusion, including exclusion of specific populations, gender inequalities,v and the educational needs of very young children, who are often the most vulnerable.3. Address peace-building and conflict resolution and other contextually relevant life-skills directly in the curriculum.4. Ensure uninterrupted funding for education through periods of transition from humanitarian to development assistance. Plan for the gradual linking of short-term, flexible approaches to education in immediate post-conflict situations, to longer-term support for the re-establishment of a state-led4/22/08 5
  6. 6. Education for All In Conflict Affected States educational system. Close the financing gap that often emerges between initial emergency responses and longer-term development assistance.5. Stay engaged in situations of prolonged conflict, or deterioration into conflict. In such contexts, make sure that the education offered to refugee populations is transportable, leads to possibilities for formal accreditation which are valid and accepted in all relevant jurisdictions (i.e. country of origin, host country).6. Work in a coordinated fashion with other donors. Aid to education in conflict situations is often piece-meal and ad hoc. There is a grave danger of neglect in contexts of limited geopolitical significance to donor countries, which requires international monitoring and pools of finance.7. In periods of crisis or protracted conflict, ensure that education is part of an internationally coordinated plan for humanitarian intervention through field level coordination. In periods of acute conflict, and post-conflict reconstruction, strive for donor coordination, alignment and harmonization.CIDA’s general guidelines for programming in fragile states (CIDA 2005) seem supportive of theseprinciples, but the Agency has no formal policy in which it adopts them. Anecdotal evidence, includingrecent project lists (Appendix 1), suggests that CIDA is indeed supporting projects that directly addressinclusion and peace building. CIDA’s efforts to work in greater alignment with other donors is evidentin the recent funding of multilateral (e.g., World Bank or UNICEF) efforts in countries likeAfghanistan and Haiti. However, more in depth research is needed to assess how widely theseprinciples guide both CIDA’s programs in individual countries and the programs undertaken byCanadian nongovernmental actors.There is, in particular, a need for greater research, discussion and learning from our two flagshipeducation sector programs in CAFS, in Afghanistan and Haiti. In both countries, Canada is at theforefront of efforts to provide aid to education in contexts where there is limited legitimate governmentauthority and capacity and protracted conflict. We have received international praise for our use of‘joined up’, “whole of government approaches” in Afghanistan (OECD-DAC 2007). However,Canadian CSOs have also questioned whether the linkage of humanitarian with military and foreignpolicy operations might threaten traditional humanitarian principles of neutrality and independence(Simpson & Tomlinson 2006: 3). Because these two country programs are tests of the possibilities andlimits of educational reconstruction in contexts of protracted conflict, there is a great need for carefulevaluation and learning. For this to be accomplished, however, much greater transparency, and wideropportunities for independent research and monitoring, will need to be set in place.Finally, these internationally established principles suggest several ways in which both CIDA andCanadian NGOs can improve their joint support for education in CAFS:  Include education in our humanitarian assistance programs. While Canada is consistently in the top 10 humanitarian donors, education is not an explicit component of our humanitarian assistance program.  Build better bridges between the humanitarian, bilateral and NGO channels in our aid program. Such channels continue to operate quite independently inside CIDA, limiting Canada’s ability4/22/08 6
  7. 7. Education for All In Conflict Affected States to provide prompt, flexible and consistent support for education in situations that are deteriorating towards conflict, experiencing acute conflict, or transitioning from conflict to post-conflict reconstruction. Humanitarian assistance to education in emergencies, whether delivered by NGOs or CIDA, should be both protective and oriented to longer-term development goals.  Build expertise and capacity in CIDA and within the Canadian NGO community. Both CIDA and the NGO community can support training initiatives that enhance synergies, innovation and learning across government and nongovernment organizations. This is essential if we wish to provide coordinated, high-quality, flexible educational responses for conflict-affected populations.  Enhance international coordination and monitoring efforts. This is particularly important for CAFS that might be neglected or orphaned due to their limited geopolitical significance. Mechanisms and networks such as the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Global Education Cluster, and the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE), can play a valuable coordination, monitoring and motivating role.Key challenges (3):How can Canada and Canadian civil society actors ensure that:a) We endorse and support the creation of internationally-shared principles aimed at improving thecoverage and quality of Canadian aid for education in conflict-affected states?b) Greater efforts at monitoring, research, evaluation and learning occur across government andNGO-led initiatives?4/22/08 7
  8. 8. Education for All In Conflict Affected StatesAppendix 1: CIDA Education Projects in Conflict-Affected States (past 18 months)Location Project/Program & Years Amou Brief Description Partners ntUganda Support to Basic 2007- $2 M Focused on education access and retention for children in Education 2008 conflict districts of Northern Uganda, specifically in Gulu, UNICEF Kitgum, and Pader districts.Sudan Support to Basic 2006 - $2 M UNICEF’s Access to Quality Basic Education for Education in the 2007 Disadvantaged Children project in South Kordofan, Blue Transitional Zones of Nile and Abyei. Sudan UNICEFAfghanistan Girls’ Education 2007- $8 M Increase access to quality learning opportunities and Support Program 2011 promote secure and supportive learning environments for AKF-Canada girls.Afghanistan Girls’ Primary 2006- $15.5 Focus on the establishment of community-based schools to Education 2010 M supplement MoE. BRAC-Afghanistan to establish two types BRAC Afghanistan of one-room schools: Community-Based Feeder and Accelerated Learning Schools.Afghanistan Literacy Program in 2007- $1.4 M Trains 174 community teachers; offers 10 month literacy Kandahar 2008 course to 5200 participants, 80% women. Monthly food UNICEF rations provided to participants by the World Food Programme to facilitate attendance.Afghanistan Education Quality 2007- $60 M i) supports schools and communities to strengthen their Improvement Project 2011 ability to manage teaching/learning activities; (ii) invests in (EQUIP) human resources (e.g. teachers) and physical facilities; and World Bank’s (iii) strengthens schools, the Ministry of Education. Puts a priority on female teachers and students. $3.5M to Afghanistan Kandahar. Reconstruction FundAfghanistan Vocational Training 2007- $4.9 M Assists widows who are benefiting from the CIDA funded for Afghan Women 2011 Humanitarian Assistance for the Women of Afghanistan WUSC-CARE (HAWA) through skills development.Haiti School Feeding NA $10 M Provides daily meals to 330,000 primary school children in Support Program five departments of Haiti (North, Northeast, Northwest, World Food Program Southeast, and Artibonite).Haiti Credit for Tuition Fees NA $5.4 M Provides parents with loans for school fees, uniforms and (partner n/a) books through a network of 35 credit unions. Also includes innovations in teaching and learning, and informs parents about the importance of regular school attendance. Goals of 45,250 loans; 210 primary schools to benefit.Haiti Education for All NA $1.2 M To increase access to primary school for up to 13,500 poor Government of Haiti, children. Canada to fund the operational expenses of the with World Bank & schools and the distribution of textbooks to enable poor Caribbean families to enroll children free of charge. Targets Nippes and Artibonite regions. Development BankHaiti Improvement in Basic 2006 - $0.3 M Development of basic education in the Northern and Education 2008 Northeastern regions of Haiti. Pedagogical support to Plan Nagua Inc. educators in schools and facilitates access for marginalized groups. Tries to convince foster families of female "Restaveks" (domestic children) of the benefits of education.West Bank Adolescent Learning 2007 - $1.9 M Non-formal education and training to adolescents; establishand Gaza Spaces 2008 16 adolescent-friendly spaces in areas of West Bank and UNICEF Gaza most affected by the conflict.West Bank Safe Play Areas 2007 - $2.1 M 35 safe play areas for children and adolescents in areas mostand Gaza UNICEF 2008 affected by the conflict.4/22/08 8
  9. 9. Education for All In Conflict Affected StatesNOTESi For the purposes of this paper, we use Save the Children’s definition and list of Conflict-Affected FragileStates (CAFS) (Save 2006, 2008): Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad,Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea,Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,Timor Leste, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Neither CIDA nor the Government of Canada has an approved officialdefinition of a CAFS, or list of CAF countries. Instead they employ the term “fragile state”, defined as follows:“A state can be regarded as fragile when its government does not demonstrate the will and/or the capacity todeliver core state functions. These include legitimate security and authority, protecting and promoting humanrights and gender equality, maintaining the rule of law, and providing basic services (health, education,environmental protection, and enabling private sector development). When these core state functions areunreliable and/or inaccessible, the legitimacy of the state erodes and is likely to result in a breakdown in thesocial ‘pact’ of trust and cooperation within society and between society and the state.” [Source: CIDA staffcorrespondence with author April 10, 2008.] CIDA does not have an official list of countries it considers“fragile states”.ii Based on its own calculations and previous studies by the World Bank, the Education for All GlobalMonitoring Report (UNESCO 2007:102), estimates US$ 9 billion as the amount of international financingrequired to achieve universal access to elementary schooling in all countries (including conflict-affectedcountries) by 2015 (the target date for the Millennium Development Goals). Another US$ 2 billion is needed ifother EFA goals in early childhood education and adult literacy are addressed.iii “Fair Share” is calculated by multiplying each country’s share of the combined Gross National Income of allOECD countries (GCE 2007; Save 2006, 2008), by the total external financing gap for EFA of US$ 9 billionestablished by the UNESCO GMR (2007).iv The issue of how to allocate aid, to which countries, for what purposes, and with what degree of concentration,is one that has long been debated here. Yet in practice our ODA has long been beset by what a 1987 Senatereport described as a “confusion of purpose” – poverty and humanitarian concerns compete with geopoliticaland trade interests (Canada 1987: 7). While the Canadian government has maintained its commitment todoubling aid to Africa between 2000 and 2010, in recent years, Canada, like other OECD countries, hasincreased its aid allocations for countries that are on the frontlines of international security concerns, such asAfghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq (Aning 2007; Simpson & Tomlinson 2006). CIDA’s 2008/2009 Budgetestimates re-emphasize our government’s preference for concentrating aid to a smaller number of states (thoughthe criteria for selecting countries of concentration appear to have shifted quite dramatically (OECD-DAC2007). The estimates also make specific commitments to increasing aid to four key conflict-affected states:Afghanistan, Haiti, the West Bank/Gaza and Sudan. More recently, the government has indicated renewedinterest in channeling aid to the Americas. All of this has occurred outside of any commitment to increasingoverall aid beyond 2010.v Gender inequality is often more pronounced in conflict-affected contexts. A focus on gender equality in andthrough education would enhance Canada’s support for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution1325 on Women, Peace and Security. 4/22/08 9
  10. 10. Education for All In Conflict Affected StatesREFERENCESAning, K. (2007). Security, the War on Terror and Official Development Assistance. Theme paper prepared for the North South Institute Project “Southern Perspectives on the Reform of the International Development Architecture”. Ottawa: The North South Institute.Buckland P. & Colenso, P. (2006), Progressive Framework for Education in Fragile States, Draft document prepared for the FTI Fragile States Task Team (October).Canada. (1987). For Whose Benefit? Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on Canada’s Official Development Assistance Policies and Programs. Ottawa: House of Commons, SCEAIT.CCIC [Canadian Council for International Cooperation]. (2008). DAC Preliminary ODA Numbers. Ottawa: CCIC.CIDA [Canadian International Development Agency]. (2002). CIDAs Action Plan on Basic Education. Retrieved 5 April 2008, from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/E94-320-2002E.pdfCIDA. (2005). On the Road to Recovery: Breaking the Cycle of Poverty and Fragility. Guidelines for Co-operation in Fragile States. Ottawa: CIDA.CIDA. (2007). Sustainable Development Strategy 2007-2009. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Downloaded 22 April 2008, from http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/sdsDFAIT [Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]. (February 2008). Year in Review: Mobilizing Canada’s Capacity for International Crisis Response, September 2006-August 2007. Ottawa: Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, DFAIT.DFAIT (n/a). The Global Peace and Security Program, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START). Website. Downloaded 9 April 2008 at http://international.gc.ca/fac/START-GTSR/gpsp-ppsm.aspx.GCE [Global Campaign for Education]. (2007) School Report 2007: Not Up to Scratch. Retrieved 6 April 2008 from http://www.campaignforeducation.org/schoolreport/index.html.Government of Canada. (2008). Canadian International Development Agency Estimates 2008-09, Part III: Report on Plans and Priorities. Retrieved 28 March 2008 from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-2009/inst/ida/ida00-eng.asp.House of Commons of Canada. (2007). Bill C-293. Retrieved 6 April 2008. from http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2817186&file=4.INEE [Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies]. (2004). Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction. Retrieved 10 April 2008 from http://ineesite.org/minimum_standards/MSEE_report.pdfOECD-DAC. [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development-Development Assistance Committee]. (2007). Canada Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Review. Retrieved 15 March 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_33873108_33873277_39509628_1_1_1_1,00.htmlOECD. (April 2007). Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations. Retrieved 1 March 2008 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/45/38368714.pdfOECD-DAC. (December 2007). Ensuring Fragile States are Not Left Behind. Factsheet. Paris: OECD.RET [The Foundation for the Refugee Education Trust]. (2008). Size of the Problem. Retrieved 2 April 2008 from http://www.r-e-t.com/pages/l1/l2/what_we_do/size_of_the_problem.php?itfLG=english&itfVS=html.Rose, P. & Greeley, M. (2006), Education in Fragile States – Capturing Lessons and Identifying Good Practice, Paper prepared for the DAC Fragile States Group, Service Delivery Workstream, Sub-Team for Education Services (May). Retrieved 2 April 2008 from http://www.ineesite.org/core_references/Education_in_Fragile_States.pdfSave the Children. (2006). Rewrite the Future: Education for Children in Conflict-Affected Countries. Retrieved 1 April 2008, from http://www.savethechildren.net/media/publications/rewritethefuture_pdf/RewritetheFuture- PolicyReport.pdfSave the Children. (2007). Last in Line, Last in School: How Donors are Failing Children in Conflict-Affected Fragile States. Retrieved 1 April 2008, from www.savethechildren.org/publications/rewrite-the- future/RTF_Last_in_Line_Last_in_School_report_FINAL.pdfSave the Children. (2008). Last in Line, Last in School 2008: How Donors Can Support Education for Children Affected by Conflict and Emergencies. London: International Save the Children Alliance.Sperling, G. 2006. Closing Trust Gaps: Unlocking Financing for Education in Fragile States Recommendations for the Fast-Track Initiative Fragile States Task Team 4th FTI Partnership Meeting, Cairo, Egypt, November 13-14, 2006Simpson, E., & Tomlinson, B. (2006). Canada: Is Anyone Listening? [Electronic Version]. Reality of Aid Reports. Retrieved 15 March 2008 from http://www.realityofaid.org/roareport.php?table=roa2006&id=24.UNESCO. (2007). Education for All Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO.4/22/08 10

×